ArticleVision research2008
The color appearance of stimuli detected via short-wavelength-sensitive cones: comparisons with visual adaptation and visual field data for peri- or post-menopausal women under 70 years of age.
Article in Vision research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Color vision abnormalities in type II diabetes: Sankara Nethralaya Diabetic Retinopathy Epidemiology and Molecular Genetics Study II report no 2.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2017Article
- Article
- Breast cancer medications and vision: effects of treatments for early-stage disease.Current eye research · 2011Review
- Variability in short-wavelength automated perimetry among peri- or postmenopausal women: a dependence on phyto-oestrogen consumption?Acta ophthalmologica · 2011Article
- Macular thickness measurements in healthy Norwegian volunteers: an optical coherence tomography study.BMC ophthalmology · 2010Article
- Vitreo-retinal traction and anastrozole use.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dynamics of foveal light adaptation for vision mediated via short-wavelength-sensitive (SWS) cones were compared for two groups of healthy amenorrheic (peri- or post-menopausal) women not using hormonal medication. Each subject was assigned to a group based on the color name-"lavender" ( approximately 2/3 of all subjects) or "white" (approximately 1/3 of all subjects)-chosen in a forced-response paradigm to best describe a threshold-level 440-nm test presented on a larger 3.6 log td 580-nm background that had been viewed for approximately 5 min. During the first 20-30s after this 3.6 log td background abruptly replaced a much dimmer background, the threshold elevations (relative to the steady-state levels measured at approximately 5 min) were significantly greater for the lavender-naming subjects than for the white-naming subjects. However, exponential rates of recovery were indistinguishable for the two groups. A viable interpretation is that the gain of the visual response at background onset is greater for lavender-naming subjects than for white-naming subjects at or distal to a site where responses from middle-wavelength-sensitive and long-wavelength-sensitive (MWS and LWS) cones oppose responses from SWS cones. In addition, the color names derived from foveal testing were related systematically to extrafoveal sensitivities measured with Short Wavelength Automated Perimetry (SWAP), in a manner suggesting that response gain and/or response speed may be greater for lavender-naming subjects in the direction of increased SWS response also. Evidence from other subject populations suggests that the choice of color name and the dynamics of visual response each can be affected by alterations (particularly reductions) of estrogen synthesis and response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.